EPT
And I agree, the site is graphically stellar!
Update: so I made a rating system (and a website) - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
birchman
Sweden393 Posts
And I agree, the site is graphically stellar! | ||
|
MarcoBrei
Brazil66 Posts
On December 15 2012 01:36 frogrubdown wrote: I would have expected some form of justification for this claim, but having checked out the site I can see why you didn't offer any. Simply put, they don't have any serious justification for the arbitrary values they assign in their rankings process. The process also contains obvious flaws, such as treating all placements of a given sort equally rather than assessing runs by the actual opponents beaten along the way. Why should anyone trust them over a method that aims for and tests itself against accurate predictions? Arbitrary values? Can you say what are you talking about? Did you actually read the FAQ? Tournaments are weighted based on prize pool, which is related to tournament relevance. Many people seems to prefer ratings based on what opponent some player has beaten, I simply can't understand why this is so popular, because it makes no sense if you think for more than 5 minutes. You can just look at the "unnoficial world champion" thread, which takes this concept to the limit. The so called unnoficial world champion is a joke. You said about predictions. If a rating system is designed mainly to make predictions, I can assure it will fail miserably. Finally, let's take a look to the top 5 players of each site: Aligulac: Sniper PartinG Leenock Life Effort Sc2proranks: Hero PartinG Rain Taeja Leenock Hero, top 8 in GSL, top 8 in BWC, champion of the last DreamHack and champion of the last NASL, is not even in top5 players of Aligulac. And Effort appears in top 5. Effort! Really? Aligulac is a very good site, but his concept (as well other rating systems) seems to result in a weird list of top players. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On December 15 2012 23:59 MarcoBrei wrote: Arbitrary values? Can you say what are you talking about? Did you actually read the FAQ? Tournaments are weighted based on prize pool, which is related to tournament relevance. Yes I read the FAQ, which I linked to to illustrate how arbitrary their values are. For instance: How the points of one tournament are distributed to players? Is it based on the prize gained of each player? Actually no. Only the overall prize pool is used to determine the relevance of the tournament. The player position in one tournament will give points in this way: 1st: 100%; 2nd: 70%; 3rd and 4th: 45%, 5th to 8th: 25%; 9th to 16th: 10% Want to guess where these numbers come from? If your answer wasn't 'Their ass', then you guessed wrongly. The mere fact that the values have a vague tie to something correlated with player ability, positions in prestigious tournaments, does nothing to make the values assigned to said positions non-arbitrary. There is no justification for any numerical value that is used anywhere in the system, not even the cut-off of only giving any credit whatsoever to at least ro16. Many people seems to prefer ratings based on what opponent some player has beaten, I simply can't understand why this is so popular, because it makes no sense if you think for more than 5 minutes. People like ratings based who you've beaten because being good at starcraft is having a disposition or skill that one expects to normally and in the long run result in wins. Beating the best player in the world to get to the round of 32 is extremely strong evidence that you have such a skill. But, if you get eliminated in the next round, you will get zero credit for this on your favored system. Beating some of the worst players in the world to get to the round of 16, on the other hand does not provide nearly as much evidence of skill. Every run to a given position in a tournament involves a different difficulty level depending on whom you faced. There is no reason not to tie a player ranking directly to the actual players they have faced. You can just look at the "unnoficial world champion" thread, which takes this concept to the limit. The so called unnoficial world champion is a joke. What!?!? That isn't this concept taken to the extreme, because it considers an absurdly small subset of the total gameplay evidence for who is the best player. The concept taken to the extreme is something like how the rankings on Aligulac work, because they take account of all the evidence from wins and losses, not just those against a single player selected for no particularly good reason. You said about predictions. If a rating system is designed mainly to make predictions, I can assure it will fail miserably. Once again, you provide no reasons for this claim because you have none. Successful predictions are how you test statistical models like these. That's how it works in baseball stats, poll-based election prediction models (which were monumentally successful this past cycle), everywhere. If your non-sense claim were correct, then it would undermine a lot more than this sc2 ranking system. And yet somehow, with no specific reason given, you think you can a priori rule out the success of prediction based models. Finally, let's take a look to the top 5 players of each site: Aligulac: Sniper PartinG Leenock Life Effort Sc2proranks: Hero PartinG Rain Taeja Leenock Hero, top 8 in GSL, top 8 in BWC, champion of the last DreamHack and champion of the last NASL, is not even in top5 players of Aligulac. And Effort appears in top 5. Effort! Really? Aligulac is a very good site, but his concept (as well other rating systems) seems to result in a weird list of top players. You once again demonstrate an amazingly powerful a priori insight that your fellows lack. Tell me, if you can be so confident about which players are actually the best currently without consulting the best available evidence, then why do you need any model to make predictions? This is not to say that one should have a credence of 1 that the aligulac rankings are correct, especially given sc2's volatility. But the idea of evaluating solely against the perceived best players is absurd. People get perceived as the best (among other noisy factors) by winning high-profile events, regardless of whether their runs to get there provide the best evidence of their goodness. We should expect our perceptions of who is the best to be flawed to the extent that it relies directly on such unreliable evidence. | ||
|
sibs
635 Posts
Hero is high because he goes to high-paying but relatively easy tournaments, he does this because he has the option. See how well he fares on the Korean TLPD (hint: Not that well). | ||
|
00Visor
4337 Posts
On December 15 2012 23:59 MarcoBrei wrote: Hero, top 8 in GSL, top 8 in BWC, champion of the last DreamHack and champion of the last NASL, is not even in top5 players of Aligulac. And Effort appears in top 5. Effort! Really? Aligulac is a very good site, but his concept (as well other rating systems) seems to result in a weird list of top players. Not your achievements are relevant, but WHO you win against and how often you lose. Hero plays tons of tournaments with some disappoint results (going 1-3 at MLG and so on) and the foreign tournaments don't have the toughest competition. HerO beat 1 korean at BWC, and 2 koreans (ForGG not really that notable at the moment) at Dreamhack. Its pretty logical he is not in the Top5. Efforts results seem to be greatly influented by the MLGvsProleague tournament. | ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
Because of this they aren't really comparable, in my opinion. It was never my intention to design a system that confirmed what we already know. I don't find that very interesting, and I don't find their system very interesting, either. I claim (and I haven't even seen his games) that Effort is probably better than many is giving him credit for. | ||
|
ES_JohnClark
United States1121 Posts
Also, and I have touched on this in the past when talking about rankings, but any rankings system that uses a raw value to determine overall points is extremely flawed for eSports. Meaning, that if a player attends 10 events and earns points at each, regardless of how they finish, they will most likely be ranked higher then a player that attends only 5 events and yet has much better relative finishes. As soon as I can get the time needed, I will release full details of my Global Points System that works to alleviate both of the issues that I have addressed. Other then those 2 problems, the site looks good and any rankings at this point are better then none (in most cases). Good stuff and I am know it must have taken you a good amount of time. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9377 Posts
On December 15 2012 23:59 MarcoBrei wrote: Arbitrary values? Can you say what are you talking about? Did you actually read the FAQ? Tournaments are weighted based on prize pool, which is related to tournament relevance. Many people seems to prefer ratings based on what opponent some player has beaten, I simply can't understand why this is so popular, because it makes no sense if you think for more than 5 minutes. You can just look at the "unnoficial world champion" thread, which takes this concept to the limit. The so called unnoficial world champion is a joke. You said about predictions. If a rating system is designed mainly to make predictions, I can assure it will fail miserably. Finally, let's take a look to the top 5 players of each site: Aligulac: Sniper PartinG Leenock Life Effort Sc2proranks: Hero PartinG Rain Taeja Leenock Hero, top 8 in GSL, top 8 in BWC, champion of the last DreamHack and champion of the last NASL, is not even in top5 players of Aligulac. And Effort appears in top 5. Effort! Really? Aligulac is a very good site, but his concept (as well other rating systems) seems to result in a weird list of top players. Wow you really fall short on understanding statistics. Prediction is the best way to determine one's true skills. The best player today is the player who has the highest probability of winning tomorrow. That's it. Tournament price pools are still arbitrary and can be very misleading. | ||
|
Nublakhan
United States12 Posts
Why not show the player's volatility rating/range in addition to their score? I see players start with a 1000 rating, are they starting with an RD of 350? You mention assigning and using category modifiers, how do you determine the player's category? Apologies if this was explained in your write-up; I read it twice over trying to reference between what I knew about Glicko(-1). I'm a math nerd at heart, but not in education. | ||
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On December 16 2012 01:00 csn_JohnClark wrote: I have not completely dived into the rankings system yet.. but one thing that sticks out for me and bothers me.. is that you have decided that tournaments are to be weighted for relevence based on prizing. No he doesn't? | ||
|
bduddy
United States1326 Posts
| ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
On December 16 2012 06:11 Nublakhan wrote: You mention that you are borrowing heavily from Glicko; I'm assuming from Glicko-2? Why not show the player's volatility rating/range in addition to their score? I see players start with a 1000 rating, are they starting with an RD of 350? You mention assigning and using category modifiers, how do you determine the player's category? Apologies if this was explained in your write-up; I read it twice over trying to reference between what I knew about Glicko(-1). I'm a math nerd at heart, but not in education. No, Glicko-1. That was what I tried first and I got it working, so I didn't try anything more fancy. I don't show the rating deviation because for almost everyone it's at the floor. (I had to use a pretty high floor to keep up with rapid changes. That's why the ratings are so volatile, and that's why it's so easy for players to keep their RD at the minimal allowed level.) I just didn't think it'd be interesting information. Actually players start with a rating of 0 and a deviation of 0.5. The ratings you see on the site are scaled by adding 1 and multiplying by 1000, since this creates a scale that people are familiar with. The top players are usually around 1.5 in the internal scale. This corresponds to starting RD of 500. I use a RD floor of 0.13 (=130). I am debating lowering it to 0.1 in the future, and increasing the decay a bit. Presumably the scene has "settled" enough now to allow something like this. The categories are simply races. | ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
On December 16 2012 06:44 TheBB wrote: New feature: predict matches. (Will expand with fancy graphics when I get time.) Great job! New feature request: Do the same just for groups: Let people enter a few names (4, usually), choose the format from a dropdown menu (round-robin, GSL, etc.), and have it calculate the group results. Of course, the next step would be to calculate entire tournaments!  | ||
|
JohnAdams
United States111 Posts
| ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On December 11 2012 00:59 TheBB wrote: (Yes, I'm not exactly a web designer. Hopefully it's still tolerable.) If you did the web design, I'd say that's pretty good. I like the visual style. Even code-wise it's better than teamliquid.net's (main page) mess— although that's not saying much. If you're looking for feedback though: - try to use em instead of pixel for sizes (like widths) of containers containing text though, so that regardless of the font and text size used, it will scale properly for the user. - I personally think making the whole row a link is a no no. Maybe it's just me, but I find it to be really annoying. - There's no reason [that I can think of] not to use HTML table elements (table, tr, td, etc) to display your data; that's what tables are for. Non html/css related: - a sort function would be nice - so would race-specific stats, or other stats in general Personally I'm not into following this sort of thing at all, but I'm sure many others appreciate the effort you're putting in. | ||
|
FakeDouble
Australia676 Posts
Otherwise, very cool. I love cool graphs! | ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
On December 17 2012 11:38 JohnAdams wrote: This looks interesting, but it seems very volatile. Sniper wins the GSL so his rating catapults from 2513 to 2954, but then he loses a BO1 to Gumiho, who is a measly 18th, and his rating plummets to 2068. Am I missing something here? I think you are. Sniper has never been 2954? He's one of those whose rise has been very steady. http://aligulac.com/players/9/ On December 17 2012 11:59 FakeDouble wrote: Can someone enlighten me as to what 'aligulac' means? I don't get it... Nothing... It's a word I came up with as a kid. Don't quite remember how. On December 17 2012 11:50 Xapti wrote: - try to use em instead of pixel for sizes (like widths) of containers containing text though, so that regardless of the font and text size used, it will scale properly for the user. - I personally think making the whole row a link is a no no. Maybe it's just me, but I find it to be really annoying. - There's no reason [that I can think of] not to use HTML table elements (table, tr, td, etc) to display your data; that's what tables are for. Non html/css related: - a sort function would be nice - so would race-specific stats, or other stats in general 1. Ok! 2. Fair enough. 3. Well, you can't make the whole row a link with an HTML table.  4, 5. Yeah, it's "in the pipeline" so to speak. I try to dedicate an hour or two each day but I can't always do that. | ||
|
JohnAdams
United States111 Posts
| ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
On December 18 2012 06:47 JohnAdams wrote: TheBB : http://aligulac.com/players/9/period/73/ I think the ratings displayed here are the ratings of the opponents. | ||
|
Emptyness
Bulgaria1016 Posts
 , thank you very much for doing this  . | ||
| ||
